sorry, jumped a passing bandwagon, good to go then
On Oct 4, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:11 PM
To: hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st
vs 3rd party statistics
I would be curious also but would be happy with a
73% of the signatures were author signatures meaning the "d=" value in
the signature matched the domain found in the From:header field
and let the reader draw their own conclusions
And that's what's still there. First half of page 10.
The term "third-party" was removed because DKIM itself doesn't say anything
about a binding between "d=" and anything else in the message. That concept
is first presented in ADSP. Since the implementation report is only about
DKIM itself, not ADSP, discussing author vs. third party is actually
irrelevant.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html